Large-scale plants make sense, but panels for houses simply transfer wealth from average electric customers.

Proven over and over SO many times.

The Hole in the Rooftop Solar-Panel Craze

Large-scale plants make sense, but panels for houses simply transfer wealth from average electric customers.


By
Brian H. Potts
May 17, 2015 5:52 p.m. ET

Most people buy rooftop solar panels because they think it will save them money or make them green, or both. But the truth is that rooftop solar shouldn’t be saving them money (though it often does), and it almost certainly isn’t green. In fact, the rooftop-solar craze is wasting billions of dollars a year that could be spent on greener initiatives. It also is hindering the growth of much more cost-effective renewable sources of power.

According to a recent Energy Department-backed study at North Carolina State University, installing a fully financed, average-size rooftop solar system will reduce energy costs for 93% of the single-family households in the 50 largest American cities today. That’s why people have been rushing out to buy rooftop solar panels, particularly in sunny states like Arizona, California and New Mexico.

The primary reason these small solar systems are cost-effective, however, is that they’re heavily subsidized. Utilities are forced by law to purchase solar power generated from the rooftops of homeowners and businesses at two to three times more than it would cost to buy solar power from large, independently run solar plants. Without subsidies, rooftop solar isn’t close to cost-effective.

Recent studies by Lazard and others, however, have found that large, utility-scale solar power plants can cost as little as five cents (or six cents without a subsidy) per kilowatt-hour to build and operate in the sunny Southwest. These plants are competitive with similarly sized fossil-fueled power plants. But this efficiency is possible only if solar plants are large and located in sunny parts of the country. On average, utility-scale solar plants nationwide still cost about 13 cents per kilowatt-hour, versus around six cents per kilowatt-hour for coal and natural gas, according to the Lazard study.

Large-scale solar-power prices are falling because the cost to manufacture solar panels has been decreasing and because large solar installations permit economies of scale. Rooftop solar, on the other hand, often involves microinstallations in inefficient places, which makes the overall cost as much as 3½ times higher.

So why are we paying more for the same sun?

[...]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hole-in-the-rooftop-solar-panel-craze-1431899563?mod=trending_now_1%3Fmod%3De2fb

The primary reason these small solar systems are cost-effective, however, is that they’re heavily subsidized. Utilities are forced by law to purchase solar power generated from the rooftops of homeowners and businesses at two to three times more than it would cost to buy solar power from large, independently run solar plants. Without subsidies, rooftop solar isn’t close to cost-effective.

Just how stupid do you think people are? I mean do you have any idea what you are talking about before you post propaganda? This entire article depends on the thesis that Utilities are forced by law to purchase solar power generated by homes at two or three times what an optimal solar production could produce........but do you realize the utilities do not purchase the electricity, but only offset the electricity a homeowner uses, and any excess is the utility's. You understand that the offset is based upon the efficiency of the utility producing the electricity offset by the solar......not some fantasy comparison of an absolute perfect large scale solar facility......You just need to understand what you post.....a homeowner's solar on their roof only can offset the electricity they use, and many larger systems are sending a net gain into the utility and because their use of electric is lower their total credit is less than what they could get if in fact they were selling electricity to the utilities. Amazing....simply amazing......let me give you the final analogy which you might comprehend......John pays for 10 gallons of gas each month from his utility. John decides to refine gas and is inefficient in his process and he produces 15 gallons which he is only given credit for 10 gallons by his utility. Joe the super efficient refinery produces 100 gallons for half the price of john and uses fifty gallons a month......he is only given fifty gallon credit for what he produces......now tell me Mr. Markle why is the utility paying any more for John or Joe's gas?